Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court today issued notice on a public interest litigation challenging provisions of the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2025 as unconstitutional.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, calling for the response of the Rajasthan government. Senior Advocate Abhay Mahadeo Thipsay appeared for the petitioners.

Notably, a similar PIL (Dashrath Kumar Hinunia v. State of Rajasthan) was listed before the Court, which was argued by Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi. Notice was issued in this petition as well, alongwith a stay application.

During the hearing, the bench asked why the petition was not filed before Rajasthan High Court. Ahmadi informed that similar matters on anti-conversion laws are pending before the Supreme Court and have been transferred from other Courts to it. The senior counsel also claimed that Rajasthan's anti-conversion law is "the most egregious" compared to other Acts passed earlier. Further, it was submitted that the fines for mass conversion, defined as converting more than 2 people, are "mind-boggling" as they can go upto Rs.20 lakhs. The senior counsel also highlighted that punishment under the Act can range from minimum 20 years to life.

Briefly put, the present petition, filed by advocate and researcher M Huzaifa, and veteran human rights activist John Dayal, challenges key provisions of the 2025 Act. It contends that the Act, particularly Sections 5(6), 10(3), 12, and 13 thereof, are unconstitutional as they enable executive authorities to confiscate and demolish private properties linked to cases of “unlawful religious conversion” even before any judicial determination of guilt.

For context, Section 5(6) of the Act provides that property, where unlawful conversion of a person from one religion to another religion has taken place, shall be forfeited after upholding a due inquiry by any gazetted officer appointed by the District Magistrate or State Government.

According to Section 10(3), if any institution or organization is found violating provisions of the Act, the State Government (or any other competent authority appointed by it) can cancel the registration or license of that institution or organization forever to carry out any activity within the state. Further, there can be confiscation of property of the institution or organization and freezing of their financial accounts. A penalty of Rs.1 crore shall also be imposed.

Section 12 provides thus: "Every such property or premises where the illegal exercise of conversion or mass conversion has taken place shall be liable to be forfeited and confiscated under the Act by the office of District Magistrate or by any other person so appointed in that regard by the State Government, after holding the inquiry".

Section 13 deals with demolition of illegal constructions and provides as follows: "If there is/are any illegal/ unauthorized construction(s)/ structure on such property or premises where the illegal exercise of conversion or mass conversion has taken place, shall be liable to be demolished after upholding the inquiry by any gazetted officer appointed by the District Magistrate or the State Government in that regard.

Explanation.-I No demolition shall be carried out without a prior show cause notice returnable either in accordance with the time provided by the local municipal laws or within fifteen days' time from the date of service of such notice, whichever is later.

II. If such illegal/unauthorized construction(s)/structure in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a Court of law, the demolition shall be carried out within seventy two hours after giving a show cause notice."

The petitioners argue that the impugned provisions amount to punitive demolitions and collective punishment, violating fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21, 22, and 300A of the Constitution. They further assert that by empowering administrative officers to carry out demolitions and forfeitures without trial, the Act usurps judicial powers and undermines the rule of law and separation of powers.

As per the petitioners, the Act also contradicts the Supreme Court's judgment of 2024, which prohibited extrajudicial demolitions, and attempts to give legislative legitimacy to an action the Court has already declared unconstitutional. It is warned that such measures disproportionately affect minority and marginalized communities, threatening their right to shelter, livelihood, and due process.

In this backdrop, the petitioners urge the Court to strike down the provisions. The petition has been filed through AoR Yashwant Singh.

Case Title: M HUZAIFA AND ANR. Versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 1047/2025